My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECA 08-01-1984
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
AGENDAS
>
1984
>
PRECA 08-01-1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/12/2007 2:57:10 AM
Creation date
3/29/2007 2:19:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 4 <br />ISSUE 10 What's the status of local or municipal recreation open <br />space in the metropolitan system? What should the Council's involve- <br />ment be in it? T <br />QUESTIONS <br />3. Related to issue 11 as well as issue 10; should there be <br />rewards to those communities which grant consent to regional <br />park acquisition and development within their jurisdiction <br />and, should there be penalties to those which do not? <br />A~ a mtintimum ~hene ahau~d be ne~mbun~emen~ ~a mun~c~pa2 ~~tie~ fan <br />~envticed ~a negtiana~ pane. <br />3SSUE 11 What is an appropriate level of municipal participation <br />and con ro in tfie ea-veering regiona recrea ion open space sys em? <br />The 1974 parks act says that: <br />...(the implementing agency)...shall prepare, after consultation <br />with all affected municipalities, and submit...a master plan. <br />The policy plan uses similar language in policy 9:• <br />Each implementing agency is responsible for preparing a master <br />plan for each regional system unit assigned to it by this policy <br />plan. An implementing agency shall present the master plan to <br />affected local units of government and address their concerns <br />prior to submission to the Council. <br />The intent semms plain. Some municipalities have stated that <br />their access to master plans has come only after the agency has <br />adopted the plan, making substantive change to meet their con- <br />cerns improbable. If this has happened, it is not consistent <br />with policy. <br />From another point of view, some implementing agencies cite <br />cases in which muncipalities have delayed plan approval unduly <br />in some cases insisting upon conditions which work against the <br />agency or the regional interest. Some implementing agencies <br />have been prevented from installing needed .improvements, even <br />developments for which the municipalities had given earlier <br />concept approval. There are differences in the laws which <br />control implementing agencies from on jurisdiction to another <br />and some of these have, on occasion, blocked an implementing <br />agency from going ahead with regional projects. <br />One major effect some municipalities have exerted upon regional <br />open space has been special assessments levied against parks. <br />The Council, the commission and some of the implementing agencies <br />have stated increasing concern over the process by which munici- <br />palities have made special assessments against regional parkland, <br />questing if they were based upon actual benefits to the park. <br />Other concerns are about how assessments should be paid and <br />when they should be-set, <br />One remedy suggested is-that the <br />agency could agree to treat the <br />permit, possibly meeting at one <br />municipalities the implementin <br />municipality and the implementing <br />master plan as a conditional use <br />e concerns on the part of the <br />g agency and the .Council about the <br />current planning process. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.